DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 9, 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 1 and 20 are amended and claims 1-38 are now pending in the application, with claims 9-11, 13-19, 28-30, and 32-38 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 12, 20-27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8, 12, 20-27, and 31 are directed to a method and apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill). The limitation(s) of “receiving electrophysiological data comprising first intracardiac electrogram (IEGM) signals acquired by a first pair of electrodes comprising a first intracardiac electrode and second IEGM signals acquired by a second pair of electrodes comprising a second intracardiac electrode in proximity to the first intracardiac electrode”, “inputting the first and second IEGM signals respectively to a first convolutional layer of a neural network and a second convolutional layer parallel to the first convolutional layer in the neural network to generate respective first and second interim results”, “inputting the first and second interim results together into one or more common layers of the neural network”, and “receiving from an output layer of the neural network, responsively to inputting the first and second interim results, an indication of a local activation time at a location of the first and second intracardiac electrodes” is/are a process that, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard interpretation. For example, these limitations are nothing more than receiving a signal, determining something about the signal to generate first and second interim results, determining something about the interim results, and receiving a separate signal.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 also recites first and second electrodes and a neural network, and claim 20 recites a probe comprising first and second electrodes, a neural network, and a processor. The first and second sensors amount to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering. The neural network and processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The newly-added “wherein the output layer comprises a plurality of neurons, each neuron corresponding to a respective time point within a window of interest, and each neuron providing a respective value indicating a probability that the respective time point corresponds to the local activation time” merely recites the nodes of a neural network and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it fails to transform the abstract idea into something more than the judicial exception, thus amounting to integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of first and second electrodes amount to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. The additional elements recited above are well known in the field of physiological monitoring. Moreover, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, is discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea of claims 1 and 20.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 12, 21-27, and 31, the limitations of claims 2-8, 12, 21-27, and 31 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant argues that a “human cannot practically perform parallel convolutional filtering of intracardiac electrical signals, combine their outputs in a common layer, and computer probability values across hundreds of time-point neurons to identify a local activation time”. However, it is respectfully submitted that the claim does not require such. The claim does not require “hundreds of time-point neurons”, but rather merely requires “a plurality of neurons”, which under broadest reasonable interpretation would be two or more. Furthermore, the claim does not require performing parallel convolutional filtering of intracardiac electrical signals, but rather merely requires inputting IEGM signals. The parallel convolutional filtering is not being claimed. Applicant further argues that Applicant’s claims are analogous to claim 2 of Example 37 in the 2019 USPTO Subject Mattery Eligibility Guidance. The Applicant argues that claim 2 was found not to recite a mental process because tracking memory allocation is a specific technical process that cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant argues that “the claimed operations are similarly tied to specific technical processes that include convolving IEGM signals through parallel 1D kernel filters, combining interim results in common neural network layers, and computing probability values across time-point-indexed output neurons”. However, none of these things are present in independent claims 1 or 20. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to the actions of convolving, combining, or computing. Rather, the only “actions” being performed are receiving and inputting. The Applicant argues that the Office Action oversimplifies the claims at a level of generality that the Desjardins guidance counsels against. However, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action is not simplifying the claims so much as pointing out their simplicity. If Applicant intends to claim convolving, combining, and computing probability values, then it is suggested that Applicant positively recite these steps.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the Applicant argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because the claims reflect an improvement to LAT determination technology described in the specification. However, while the specification may describe improvements, the details of such improvements are missing from the claims. Applicant alleges that the amendments to specify the output layer structure, with neurons corresponding to time points and each providing a probability value, is not generic data processing. However, in the context of the independent claims, where the output layer is merely recited as from where “an indication of a local activation time at a location of the first and second intracardiac electrodes” is received, the details of this output layer does not result in an improvement in the technology. Applicant further argues that Applicant’s claims are analogous to eligible claims 2 and 3 of Example 48. Applicant argues that Applicant’s claims follow the same pattern as eligible claims 2 and 3 because they do not stop at processing IEGM signals through a generic neural network, but rather “specify the full processing pipeline: parallel convolutional layers receiving separated IEGM signals, common layers combining the interim results, and an output layer with a plurality of time-point-indexed neurons each providing a probability value corresponding to the local activation time.” This is not found persuasive because claims 2 and 3 include steps that go beyond merely applying the neural network and include synthesizing speech waveforms and combining speech waveforms, with the relevant details being claimed. This differs from Applicant’s claims that merely receive data and input data into a neural network. Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that for the same reasons as step 2A, Prong 2, the ordered combination of claim elements provides significantly more than any abstract idea. For at least the reasons given above, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights